Coaching: What Style is Most Effective?

By Nathan Brennan, Darren Hardy and Caroline Orr

Athletic Coaching Vince Lombardi, Phil Jackson, and Mike Krzyzewski are widely respected as some of the greatest coaches in all of sport. These three are just a few of a multitude of examples of the all-time greats, but what sets them apart from the rest? Coaching plays a crucial role in the development of athletes, cohesion of teams, and the overall success of their organization. Different coaching styles, such as democratic, laissez-faire, and autocratic can have varying effects on teams as a whole and athletes as individuals. Determining an effective coaching strategy is crucial to be successful in sport. Effective coaching strategies can lead to greater motivation, faster player development, greater team cohesion, and ultimately lead to better results. By examining the strengths and weaknesses of different styles, coaches can decide what style of leadership will work best for them.

Review of Literature

Across a variety of credible journals and studies, one theme emerges on the topic of coaching. Coaching style significantly affects motivation, performance, and personal development of athletes. While there is no true one-size-fits-all approach to coaching, it is important to understand the benefits and drawbacks of different styles. A report published by the College at Brockport: State University of New York, a South African study, as well as a study conducted by sports psychologist Andrea Becker all highlights the benefits of democratic coaches (Becker, 2012) (Coaching styles and their impact on athletes) (Turman 2001). These publications state that motivation, performance, and personal growth among athletes are all positively influenced by democratic leadership. On the other hand, a research article published by two Hong Kong professors, another research article published by a professor from the University of Northern Iowa, and a journal written by a psychology professor at Sunway University describe how autocratic and authoritative approaches encourage long term adaptability, decreased anxiety, and increased intrinsic motivations (Hui et. al, 2018) (Lee et. al, 2012) (Surujlal et. al, 2012). While these resources highlight different coaching styles, the benefits are quite similar. Whatever coaching style athletes are more receptive to will lead to increased motivation and performance. These articles, studies, and publications can help lead coaches to the leadership style that will be most effective for their athletes.

Implications for Practitioners

Furthermore, there are valuable lessons to be learned from this compilation of knowledge. Coaches must analyze their athletes and find what they respond best to. For example, coaches must decide what lens they are looking through. For a long-term approach, coaches should lean onto a more autocratic and facilitative approach. Coaches must develop respect long-term as well as foster a motivational culture. This would be a good approach for a more experienced coach that has moved to a new program that they look to rebuild and be a part of long-term. For coaches who are more focused on short-term success, such as a college basketball coach who is constantly cycling through players year after year, a democratic coaching style that focuses on building autonomy can be more successful. By allowing athletes to focus on working together and becoming more of an independent unit, team cohesion is increased, which is essential for teams that players move on quickly from. Additionally, youth coaches must adopt different practices than professional coaches. Youth coaches must focus on creating an environment focused on enjoyment and development. Professional coaches must focus on fostering a more controlled environment where strong leadership provides developmental feedback and focuses more on achieving positive results in competition.

Key Takeaways for Coaches

To conclude, studies have shown that there is no “correct” coaching approach. The effectiveness of coaching is dependent on context and player needs. Effective coaching strategies can lead to greater motivation, faster player development, greater team cohesion, and ultimately lead to better results. Coaches must analyze their teams and understand the timeframe of success that they are trying to achieve. The greatest coaches knew how to adapt their methods to get the best results out of their athletes. Adaptive and effective coaching is not just a leadership skill, it is a strategic advantage.

References

Becker, A. (2012). Collegiate basketball players experienced of being coached during a turnaround season. Sport psychologist, March 2012, vol 26, pg 19-43.

Coaching styles and their impact on athletes. (n.d.). https://www.trine.edu/academics/centers/center-for-sports-studies/blog/2021/coaching_styles_and_their_impact_on_athletes.aspx

Hui, R. T., & Sue‐Chan, C. (2018). Variations in coaching style and their impact on subordinates’ work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(5), 663–679. doi:10.1002/job.2263

Lee, M. C., Idris, Mohd. A., & Tuckey, M. (2018). Supervisory coaching and Performance Feedback as mediators of the relationships between leadership styles, work engagement, and turnover intention. Human Resource Development International, 22(3), 257–282. doi:10.1080/13678868.2018.1530170

Surujlal, J., & Dhurup, M. (2012). Athlete preference of coach’s leadership style. African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation & Dance, 18(1), 111–121.

Turman, P. D. (2001). Situational coaching styles. Small Group Research, 32(5), 576–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200504